‘Informed’, ‘active’ and ‘engaged’?

Understanding and
enacting information literacy from a UK citizenship
perspective.
Simon Paul Cloudesley, Library Assistant, Reader Services, Bodleian
Library, University of Oxford. simon.cloudesley@bodleian.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
Information literacy (IL) has been considered by Library and Information Studies (LIS) research
and praxis to be vital in helping citizens be ‘informed’, ‘active’ and ‘engaged’ within society. LIS
discourse has explored different conceptions of citizenship and its relationship with IL within the
paradigm of liberal democratic societies. Critical IL approaches have in turn promoted a
citizenship of personal agency, empowerment, challenging the status quo and the pursuit of
social justice, as well as focusing on what has been termed ‘political literacy’. However, critical
information literacy has also problematised some of the approaches to citizenship found in LIS
discourse. Despite the complexity of the subject, empirical study into these issues is still
severely lacking. This research moves to start addressing this need by investigating how IL is
understood and enacted from the perspective of UK citizenship. Using a qualitative approach of
semi-structured interviews with five UK citizens based in Oxford, UK, in the summer of 2019, it
set out to establish the relationship between IL and citizenship in a personal context. It was
found to be understood and enacted through the development of socially-constructed personal
citizenship information landscapes, oriented to a personal sense of citizenship, agency,
motivation and empowerment. These personal landscapes challenge some of the established IL
paradigms of ‘informed’, ‘active’ and ‘engaged’ citizens, as well as related concepts of
information ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’. They also raise questions of the role of personal ethics in
decision making as citizens and potential tensions with ‘acceptable’ norms. These findings help
to further problematise the dynamic between IL and citizenship, and challenge LIS research and
praxis not just to promote specific values and goals, but also to work towards a greater
understanding of the personal contexts shaping that dynamic.

Keywords
citizenship; democracy; information landscapes; information literacy

1. Introduction
Library and Information Studies (LIS) discourse and public policy from professional
organisations frame the interaction between information literacy (IL) and citizenship within
liberal democracies, where all individuals de jure have the right and freedom to act as
autonomous individuals, achieving not only self-actualization but the ability to effect change on
the societies in which they are citizens. Of course, as Francis Fukuyama (2018) has recently
written, the opportunity and capacity for such development may not de facto exist equally
among individuals for any number of reasons. In response, IL has been seen by the profession
as vital in helping individuals to fulfil their potential and support the health of the democracies in
which they live, through active and engaged participation.

In 1989, The American Library Association (ALA) was influential in outlining the vision of an
‘information literate’ citizenry. It was one of engagement and participation, of seizing
opportunities, especially in the civic and democratic sphere, stating that ‘to say that information

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 20

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
literacy is crucial to effective citizenship is simply to say it is central to the practice of
democracy’ (ALA, 1989, section 5).

Since then, LIS research and public policy have abounded with references to ‘informed’,
‘engaged’ and ‘active’ citizens—either separately or in combination. These terms are often
vaguely defined; however, it is clear that ‘citizenship’ from an IL perspective is centred on the
potential and expectation for citizens to act as agents within democratic societies. Within the
last twenty years this IL perspective on citizenship has developed as IL theory and praxis have
evolved more complex understandings of the information world, especially with the development
of critical and radical approaches. In light of global political and social upheavals in the last
decade, especially in Western democracies, mediated by the expansion and democratisation of
the information world through the internet and social media, IL research and public policy have
increasingly focused on the political and civic engagement of citizens, to the extent that IL is
being seen by some explicitly as the ‘political literacy’ of citizens (Buschman, 2019). A recent
edited volume on the subject ‘deliberately seeks to situate information literacy in the political
realm and to demonstrate the political implications of information literacy’ (Goldstein, 2020, xxv).
On the other hand, some still maintain that neither IL nor citizenship is just about the political
and democratic life; rather IL is a path to empowerment and engaged citizenship in all areas of
life (CILIP, 2018).

This discourse can be greatly informed by delineating definitions and concepts of citizenship as
found in political science. In his classic text Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New
Age (2004), Barber advocates for a citizenship that ‘serves to transform interests and to reorient
identity’; democracy, in turn, requires ‘a form of political consciousness that will enlarge the
understandings and sympathies of interest-motivated individuals’ and transform them into
community-bound citizens (p. 173).

Others have highlighted important distinctions and nuances within citizenship. Kelly (1979)
recognises that citizenship can encompass a range of attitudes, from civic-minded active
participation and obligation, to the passive expectation of rights and non-political engagement
with society. The ‘pluralist citizen’, as Kelly describes them, may have multiple loyalties and
interests, some of which may be non-political and some which may bring them into conflict with
the state. Schattle (2018) contrasts the legal definition of citizenship, which bestows rights,
protections and obligations within a jurisdiction, with further ‘voluntary’ aspects, which involve
ideas of participation, empowerment, belonging and identity. Within the emerging concept of
‘global citizenship’ there has developed both a moral-based, ‘civic republican’ vision
(emphasising global awareness, responsibility and participation) and a competency-based,
‘libertarian’ vision (emphasising global mobility and competitiveness, without a strong sense of
community or solidarity). These two visons of citizenship are by no means mutually exclusive,
but can often coexist and interact within the outlook of the citizen (Schattle 2005; 2008).

IL discourse, both in theory and practice, has interacted with many, if not all, of these different
aspects of modern-day citizenship as identified within political science. It is essential for
research to understand that concepts of citizenship are complex and nuanced; the implications
being that information literate citizens will see themselves and their roles within society in
different ways. However, empirical studies into the dynamic between IL and citizenship are
often lacking. The importance of IL to citizenship in the contemporary context, and the
recognition of the complex connection between them, demonstrates a powerful need for more
empirical study to further delineate that relationship.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 21

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
This study aims to make a step in this direction by posing the question: How is IL understood
and enacted from the perspective of UK citizenship? It will explore UK citizens’ conception(s) of
citizenship and how these same citizens engage with information in relation to these personal
conceptions, with IL being broadly defined as how people find and use information in their daily
lives. The research took place in the summer of 2019, as the UK was in the process of
negotiating its departure from the European Union. This provided a timely context within which
to explore these themes as the country’s political, civic and social landscapes were—and
continue to be—in a state of flux, with citizens (re)visiting ideas surrounding identity, citizenship
and democratic participation. Empirical investigation can help us understand how IL is being
employed by individuals to help with their navigation through these issues in their personal lives
and within their communities. It can help highlight and inform future developments in research
and praxis, as well as validate or disrupt current discourse. Recent political events in the United
States surrounding the contested results of the 2020 Presidential Election and the subsequent
civil unrest in Washington D.C. have emphasised more acutely than ever the interaction
between information and personal understandings of what it means to be an ‘informed’, ‘active’
and ‘engaged’ citizen. Research into the dynamic between IL and citizenship is more important
now than ever.

2. Literature Review
By exploring the different trends within LIS research and organisational public policy regarding
IL and citizenship, it is possible to situate this discourse within contemporary definitions of
citizenship from political science. As will be seen, the relationship between IL and citizenship
(and, in relation, the functioning of democracy) has been increasingly examined from a critical
perspective and problematised. As a result, LIS research has opened up avenues for more
nuanced and complex discussion regarding these issues.

As already noted, the public policy statements of The American Library Association (ALA, 1989)
and The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP, 2018) have
expressed the belief in a vital link between IL and citizenship, with its role in shaping an
informed and engaged citizenry. These statements, past and present, highlight the ongoing
importance of this issue to professional bodies over the last thirty years, leading to policies that
guide much institutional practice both domestically and abroad, and seek to influence the
policies of other related organisations, including governments. The contemporary goal of
‘engaged citizens, able to play a full part in democratic life and society’ and who are enabled to
‘reach and express informed views’ about the world around them (CILIP, 2018, pp. 4, 3)
connect with contemporary political and social concerns, as well as sharing in Barber’s (2004)
vision of participatory democracy: IL can be seen as a way of developing the engaged political
‘talk’ that helps reorient the citizen toward the public good.

International bodies have expressed the relationship between IL and citizenship in similar terms.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation highlights the importance
of IL in tackling ‘inequities’ and ‘promoting tolerance and mutual understanding through
information’, even considering IL as ‘part of the basic human right of lifelong learning’
(UNESCO, 2003, paras. 4, 3). The International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions (IFLA, 2005; 2012) has further developed these ideas by highlighting the potential of
attainment and competitive advantage for individuals, communities and nations within a global
environment of opportunity, as well as the development of open, pluralistic societies.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 22

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
These organisations advocate for citizens who are tolerant, liberal, civic-minded and engaged,
and economically capable and competitive, situating the individual within communities that are
both local and global. This enterprise of developing both social and human capital as citizens
combines elements of ‘communal and consensual’ participatory democracies at a national level
(Barber, 2004), as well as the liberal multicultural and neoliberal economic concerns of global
citizenship (Schattle, 2005; 2008). However, the ‘scaling up’ of IL and citizenship policy to a
global context only serves to highlight aspiration and idealism. Such hopes may risk overlooking
the wide social and economic inequities across the globe, the political diversity of nations and
wide-ranging disparity in human rights and agency, failing to recognise as a result that the
dynamic between IL and citizenship may in reality look very different from place to place, with
limited scope for change or development. With this global vision also comes the tension
between citizenship ‘power’ and influence (and indeed governmental power and influence) that
is confined to the legal framework of individual nation states, and contemporary issues and
forces that are global in nature and often outside of local control (Schattle, 2018).

LIS research on IL has aligned in many ways with the content of these policy statements,
focusing on the ‘voluntary’ aspects of citizenship, as outlined by Schattle (2018). It has also tried
to articulate a supporting praxis, such as Correia (2002), who examined within a framework of
citizenship rights and responsibilities how IL can, in practical ways, support engagement in
communal civic life, and the supporting role played by libraries and other educational
institutions.

However, LIS conceptions of IL and citizenship have evolved beyond ideas of specific rights,
obligations and ‘competencies’, to a more complex sense of ‘informed’, ‘active’ and ‘engaged’
citizens. Underpinning this change is the shift within IL research and praxis away from a
behaviourist model of IL ‘standards’ to the development of critical literacy (Tewell, 2015;
Thornton, 2012). From critiquing the skills-based, functionalist approach, with its sense of
knowledge deficit (Jacobs, 2008; Jacobs & Berg, 2011; Kapitzke, 2003), research has moved
towards understanding and engaging with socially constructed and enacted information
landscapes (Lloyd, 2005; 2006; 2012), as well as critical reflection on information structures and
production, incorporating critical theory and pedagogy (Elmborg, 2006). The critical and
contextual-based approach to the information world, which ‘acknowledges and emboldens the
learner’s agency in the educational process’ and ‘positions education as a catalyst for social
justice’ (Tewell, 2015, pp. 25-26), has brought a new focus to IL and citizenship by emphasising
the personal agency of empowered citizens to challenge power structures within democratic
societies and work actively towards a fairer society for all. Critical literacy, then, proposes a far
more sophisticated view of citizenship beyond ideas of rights, obligations and competencies,
neatly expressed by the conceptualisation of IL as a ‘liberal art’ as well as a technical one
(Shapiro and Hughes, 1996).

Following the lead of UNESCO and IFLA, these emerging approaches demonstrate an
expanded sense of ‘active’ and ‘engaged’ citizen, highlighting that twenty-first century
citizenship requires building human and social capital in a global context (Gacel-Avila, 2005). In
this way, as ‘higher education is being re-conceptualised to prepare students to become
productive global citizens’ (Kutner & Armstrong, 2012, p. 31), IL is seen as playing a supporting
role in raising levels of awareness and participation, as well as supporting the development of a
global citizen identity (Stevens & Campbell, 2006). Information literate citizens who successfully
engage in an increasingly globalised world and a competitive, technology-driven economy align
with the dimensions of global citizenship described by Schattle (2005; 2008).

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 23

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Along with the global dimension, the development of the political dimension—termed ‘political
literacy’ (Buschman, 2019)—has been an important focus of IL and citizenship research. As
Jacobs states: ‘As a form of literacy, information literacy also operates within a socio-political
context and is thus politically charged’ (Jacobs, 2008, p. 258). Smith has also noted that IL,
especially its critical form, can help ‘meaningfully engage with the democratic social goals of
LIS’ through fostering ‘political agency and increasing meaningful and active involvement in
democratic processes’ (Smith, 2013, p. 15). Subsequent studies focusing on the political
participation of young people (Smith, 2016a; 2016b; Smith & McMenemy, 2016; 2017) are
important for providing rare examples of empirical study that explore specific information needs
and behaviours relating to citizenship. This research highlights work within communication
studies (Loader et al., 2014a; 2014b; 2016) that has delineated the changing face of political
and civic engagement, especially among young people, and challenges normative conceptions
of citizenship which view individuals as ‘inadequate.’ This challenge is similarly developing
within LIS discourse relating to concepts of information ‘poverty’ (as discussed below). Using a
multidisciplinary approach, IL research is being informed by different perspectives of what it
means to be an ‘informed’ and ‘engaged’ citizen, highlighting that traditional definitions and
conceptions of citizenship are proving increasingly unhelpful for understanding citizens in
contemporary society.

Elsewhere, the relationship between IL and citizenship as found in LIS discourse has been
problematised, suggesting a more complex understanding of how information functions in
democracy (Dervin, 1994) and questioning the connection between ‘informed’ and ‘involved’
citizens (Lievrouw, 1994). Building on this work, Buschman (2018; 2019) has emphasised the
need for a better understanding of the workings of modern democracy, much of which takes
place outside of formal politics and is centred instead on the ‘democratic self-government’ of
community space, interaction and discourse. This connects once again to the insights gained
from political science and communication studies that theorise community-bound citizenship
(Barber, 2004) and explore democratic participation outside societal norms (Loader et al.,
2014a; 2014b; 2016). In relation Buschman (2018) notes that libraries as physical spaces can
promote democratic and liberal values, and foster inclusive conversation among citizens; by
extension, IL can provide a similar intellectual space.

Through critical literacy and its awareness of hidden power structures in the information world,
other problems have been identified within IL and citizenship discourse, notably the influence of
neoliberalism as found within wider LIS research and praxis. Economic neoliberalism has been
identified in the ‘corporatization’ of higher education and libraries (Buschman, 2017; Lawson et
al., 2015), which has in turn focused IL discourse towards developing human capital rather than
its social counterpart (Nicholson, 2014; Seale, 2013). As a result, some have criticised a
conception of citizenship which is too focused on ‘skilling for the workplace’ (Stevens &
Campbell, 2006, p. 538) and instead advocate for, especially in the post-financial crash era,
‘information citizens’ who do more than just ‘contribute to generating economic growth’ (Webber
& Johnston, 2013, p. 25).

Neoliberal influence has also been identified within the information flow of social and political
discourse, where citizens are treated as consumers, resulting in ‘compromised democratic
agency’ (Buschman, 2016, p. 45; Lievrouw, 1994). In addition, IL discourse often assumes and
reinforces neoliberal conceptions of democracy and citizenship, premised on the obligations of
citizens to inform themselves in order to make ‘right’ choices and behave ‘correctly’ (Eckerdal,
2017; Elmborg, 2010;). As a challenge, Eckerdal (2017) proposes an alternative model based
on agonistic pluralism, which recognises the need for pluralism and conflict at the heart of

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 24

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
democratic society, and where critical IL enables citizens to challenge the status quo, engage in
legitimate adversarial debate and dialogue and act for the common good. Once again, these
ideas promote the ‘common and consensual’ political talk as theorised by Barber (2004).

Finally, IL and citizenship discourse has touched on concepts of information ‘wealth’ and
‘poverty’. The importance of information wealth and lifelong learning for social, civic and political
engagement, and the overall health of democratic society, have been recognised and described
(Griffin, 1999; Jones & Symon, 2001). By contrast, information poverty can be seen to lead to
social exclusion and disengagement, the opposite of ‘informed’ and ‘engaged’ citizens (Lloyd et
al., 2010; Murdock & Golding, 1989; Thompson, 2007); indeed, ‘those who do not engage are
seen as inactive citizens and problematic … By not engaging they are immediately at a
disadvantage as learners as well as citizens’ (Antonesa, 2007, p. 29). However, critical
approaches to the nature of literacy itself, and concepts of information wealth and poverty, have
questioned the power dynamics behind these definitions, even positing that ‘illiteracy’ can be
seen as an act of resistance as groups ‘consciously or unconsciously refuse to learn the specific
cultural codes and competencies authorised by the dominant culture’s view of literacy’ (Giroux,
1988, p. 67). Gibson and Martin (2019) in a recent ethnographic study have problematised the
deficit approach to information poverty and argue that it is the ‘uncritical assumptions about the
superiority of institutionally sanctioned information values’ (p. 478)—including those of LIS—that
are the source of the problem rather than the individual. As examples, Hackett (2018) has
identified a tendency in public discourse to simplistically equate IL with digital access, especially
digital access to government information; and Hicks and Lloyd (2016) have shown how
normative values of literacy and information wealth can also manifest themselves as a form of
cultural imperialism when applied across cultural boundaries. Such approaches cut both ways:
defining people as ‘illiterate’ or ‘uninformed’ when they are not, and vice versa. These ideas are
important to IL and citizenship research, inviting critical reassessment of the concept of an
‘informed’ citizen.

Reviewing the literature has demonstrated the deeply held view that IL has the potential to help
citizens become informed and engaged with democratic society in a way that promotes values
of democracy, diversity, tolerance and social justice. Such views have developed most strongly
within the critical IL paradigm of personal agency and empowerment. IL is perceived in terms of
developing both the human and social capital of individuals in order to be socially included and
successful in an increasingly globalised world. However, critical approaches have highlighted
the complex relationship between IL, citizenship and democracy, and have uncovered and
challenged the power dynamics and unexamined assumptions within some elements of
research and praxis. Such complexity only serves to make IL and citizenship more in need of
further study—and the more engaging for it.

Despite this, there has been a noticeable lack of empirical study of IL as enacted in everyday
settings relating to citizenship, as are approaches that seek out the voices of citizens in
understanding contemporary citizenship and its relationship to IL. As Jeff Lilburn has best
expressed it: ‘LIS champions the development of informed citizens, or of global citizens, but little
consideration is given to what an informed citizen might actually aspire to do, change or
contribute’ (2013, p. 63). Instead of solely promoting a particular kind of citizen ethic, empirical
study will help LIS scholars and practitioners make firmer connections between IL and
citizenship, aiding the evaluation of current approaches and potentially helping to develop IL
practice that can be more meaningful for the individual. It can help find fuller answers to the
question: what does an informed citizen actually aspire to do?

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 25

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
3. Methodology
The research took a qualitative approach through the use of semi-structured interviews to allow
a proper exploration of and reflection on the ideas and experiences of the participants,
recognising that reality is socially constructed by the individual and that knowledge and meaning
are co-constructed by the researcher and participant during the interview process (Brinkman,
2014; Pickard et al., 2013). An interview guide was developed consisting of general questions
asked of all the participants. These covered the issues considered most relevant to the research
question, while still allowing the flexibility to explore answers in more detail with follow-up
dialogue (Luo & Wildemuth, 2017; Pickard et al., 2013):

a) Citizenship: Defining personal conceptions of citizenship and personal citizenship ‘goals’;

b) Information needs and behaviour: How information is being used in a citizenship context
to explore personal ideas of citizenship and meet personal citizenship goals;

c) Information wealth and poverty: What enables and constrains interaction with information
within a personal citizenship context and whether information needs are being met;

d) Information and identity: How information has interacted with citizen identity and
conceptions of citizenship over time.

The interview guide also made use of timeline interviewing and critical incident technique (Luo &
Wildemuth, 2017), asking participants to identify and recall both discrete incidents and
processes over time. A constant comparison method was also used in which interview
questions were adjusted between interviews, and emerging themes presented to the next
interviewee so that they could position themselves in relation to those themes. The recorded
interviews were manually transcribed and coded through an open coding technique in which key
words or concepts were identified, recognising that the coding process can be seen as ‘the
product of deliberate interpretation by the researcher(s)’ (Bryant, 2014, p. 124; Charmaz, 2006).
The coding across all five interviews was then condensed into twenty codes and grouped into
major themes, which provided the basis for the following discussion.

This study involved recruiting and interviewing five UK citizens in Oxford, UK, centred on the
Oxford Brookes University Library, an academic library open to the public and an important
social hub within the local community. Five participants were found through a combination of
recruitment posters, information flyers and volunteer recommendations:

Age Gender Occupation

Participant A 54 F Student

Participant B 32 F Librarian

Participant C 50 F Librarian

Participant D 62 F Librarian

Participant E 50 M Retail/Self-employed
entertainer

The sample for this study was highly limited in its sample size; and in terms of transferability, it
is recognised that the data collected is not representative and is tied to context, as indicated by
the focus on Oxford and by the similar demographics and professional backgrounds of most of
the participants. However, being ‘time- and context-bound’ (Pickard et al., 2013, p. 12), it

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 26

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
provides a valuable snapshot of lived scenarios and experiences which can elucidate avenues
for more detailed and comprehensive further study. As seen above, critical approaches have
demonstrated that IL is highly contextualised, with concepts of citizenship varied and changing
in the twenty-first century. Although limited in scope, the approach taken by this study offers a
powerful way to explore personal contexts, meanings and realities.

4. Findings
The following discussion will focus on the five main themes that emerged through the research
coding: ideas of citizenship; community; information bias and subjectivity; information
management and disengagement; and information barriers.

4.1 Ideas of citizenship

Citizenship was understood by participants to be a form of social construct that represented an

outside ‘system’ requiring some level of engagement. The idea of being a ‘good citizen’ was
seen as adherence to socially and culturally defined norms of behaviour, which carried certain
expectations, obligations and responsibilities, such as obeying the law, voting and participating
in work and the economy. It was also seen in some ways as providing a ‘legal’ structure which
introduced protections and boundaries:

‘For me citizenship means contributing to that social whole. So I don’t think in terms of
nationhood or belonging to this; I think in terms of a social contribution. I think to be a
citizen you have to participate in some way … Citizenship is about participating in that
society and proactively doing certain things to contribute to that society’ (Participant B).

Although they acknowledged a ‘system’ with certain expectations of citizen behaviour, all the
participants questioned in different ways the concept of citizenship within the United Kingdom
as they personally experience it. Firstly, even the terminology of ‘citizenship’ or ‘citizen’ was
problematic for some, either because they felt they did not fully understand the legal definition,
or they were terms without personal resonance. Secondly, the idea of social and cultural norms
of expected behaviour led to various expressions of a conformity-nonconformity paradigm, such
as questioning the expectation to work, resisting the ‘pressure’ to vote, or ‘bend[ing] the notion
of being a good citizen’ (Participant B) by considering some expectations (including obeying
some laws) as being more important than others:

‘So we talk a lot about society as well as opposed to citizens. So you have to do things
like uphold the law and be law-abiding or whatever. But it doesn’t mean to me any specific
set of behaviours … So being a citizen doesn’t mean that you have to vote, or you have to
have a job, or you have to do whatever’ (Participant C).

Within these understandings of citizenship, information was seen as playing a mixed role in
supporting decisions regarding engagement or conflict; but was also seen as peripheral in other
situations:

‘If I felt that there was a conflict and I was going to have to make a decision that wasn’t
going to be the mainstream … or wasn’t going to be acceptable or wasn’t going to be
legal … then I guess the more information I could get around that situation and that idea
then the more confident I would feel about my decision or my place’ (Participant A).

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 27

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
4.2 Community

Personal conceptions of citizenship and citizenship goals were expressed most strongly through
the paradigm of community. Acting within a wider social space, citizenship was described as a
community-bound phenomenon, located on a continuum which ranged from a passive sense of
‘belonging’ to a community (or communities), to more active engagement through political,
social and cultural participation. Participants desired to interact with the community in a
responsible way by promoting tolerance and respect in various contexts:

‘I’m thinking that maybe there is a much more lighter side to [citizenship] whereas in your
everyday life there is this feeling of being a good citizen—although I wouldn’t phrase it like
that—you’d be doing things, for example, you go litter picking, or you see someone fall
over and you go and help them … So I think that there is a lighter way in which you work
with citizenship, the very fact that you acknowledge other people as human beings…’
(Participant D).

Personal citizenship goals included fostering everyday community-bound social interactions, as

well as specific activities, such as volunteering and supporting charities, local events and
businesses. The important of environmental awareness and recycling was also a common
focus. Despite the ‘boundaries’ of legally-defined citizenship, personal citizenship sometimes
transcended such legal or geographical communities to encompass ideas of ‘global citizenship’
or ‘citizen of the world.’ A more humanitarian approach to citizenship, this was focused on
people and not country.

Although constructed norms of behaviour were challenged, a strong conception of citizen

engagement was described, motivated and directed by a personal or moral sense of
responsibility and obligation. This manifested itself in different participatory ways, whether
social, cultural or political. However, all avenues of expression were governed by a belief that
citizens should be trying to make their society a better place:

‘I’m a very grateful individual, so I feel that I have to contribute—well I don’t have to, I
want to contribute something to that … I think that being political shouldn’t be obligatory,
but I do think you should be an active citizen’ (Participant E).

The community-bound view of citizenship impacted greatly on the sources of information that
were emphasised. The internet, social media and print and broadcast news were all mentioned
as ways in which individuals as citizens informed themselves. However, the centrality of social
interactions and the community-based nature of many citizenship activities placed a high value
on socially-embodied information sources and information exchange. Talking to others within
professional or social contexts, exchanging and disseminating information within the
community, and information seeking on behalf of others, were all considered essential in
pursuing personal citizenship goals of building community and solidarity.

4.3 Information bias and subjectivity

Bias and subjectivity were identified as major forces that shaped the information landscape and
affected participants’ lives as citizens. They were seen as sources of frustration or distraction
that disrupted a personal sense of community and solidarity with others. Participants recognised
not only the biases and subjectivity in the world around them, but also those within themselves
and how this affected their relationship to information. Mis/disinformation on the internet, media

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 28

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
bias (especially within newspapers) and the polarisation of social media were highlighted, as
well as the positive spins or emotional glosses often placed on information:

‘It’s pointless going onto Twitter because you’ll get people who disagree, violently
disagree and you think, well, I violently disagree with you. So it sets up a tension before
you have even started … People think their opinions are right and there is no sense of
compromise … it’s a dirty word nowadays, but just listening; listening seems to have gone
out of the window’ (Participant C)

The polarisation and tribalism of social media and other sources of information were seen as
working against participants’ ideas of community and the fostering of positive social relations
that were expressed as central to ideas of citizenship. The prominence of Brexit in public
discourse, in particular, was seen as detrimental to engagement with information sources, as
the highly divisive debate led to ‘switching off’ when encountering views from the opposing
side—or even a switching off in general.

However, participants also recognised their own information ‘bubble’ as they aligned with
information sources that agreed with their own worldview and ideas of citizenship. Emotion was
also highlighted as a driving force, not only in making decisions and judgments (such as Brexit),
but also in helping to preserve the personal ‘bubble’ by limiting the ability to be objective:

‘If I discuss Brexit with people that I disagree with I find it very, very difficult because I just
can’t understand their mentality. But at the same time I feel it’s very important to be liberal
and to accept people hold different views. I just can’t accept the logic behind it … The
problem is my feelings get the better of my thoughts … I start to get frustrated, and there’s
probably not enough give in me to really try to understand that information … I don’t
necessarily listen properly … I’m too dismissive’ (Participant B).

In relation, information seeking and use were described as sometimes guided by a need to
justify decisions taken largely according to pre-existing personal values, such as which election
candidate to vote for. In this way information ‘success’ was seen as finding enough information
to feel validated.

Despite the difficulties of bias, polarisation and emotional responses, the value of seeking a
range of views from various information sources was considered important to being informed
citizens, particularly on political issues. ‘Valid’ information was seen as a way to potentially form
or change personal views. Participants showed a range of responses from feeling that they
needed to do more to hear differing views (even though they might struggle emotionally), to
actively seeking challenges to their views or considering themselves ‘happy’ to be persuaded:

‘I like actually to have challenging views coming back in, things that I don’t necessarily
agree with … I tend to be curious what people are saying. So I go in and make my own
opinion … I try not to have a set view. I try and form [my own views] by as many opinions
as possible. And I do like people who challenge and come up with other views’
(Participant D).

4.4 Information management and disengagement

The participants described different practices in managing the information they interacted with in
their lives. As seen, various levels of avoidance and disengagement came in reaction to bias

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 29

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
and subjectivity and its negative impact on a sense of community and solidarity. The qualitative
nature of the information encountered or provided by others was also highlighted as an issue:

‘So what I really believe is that every time the news comes on or there is a newspaper,
that headline should be someone has died, or someone is being tortured, or somebody is
hungry—that should be the headline every day on every paper until that stops. But it’s not.
But it should be. I know that … So because I know that I disengage completely with the
news’ (Participant E).

One participant felt strongly about the importance of managing information as a way of
promoting mental wellbeing, and as such paid close attention to the information she was
exposed to:

‘There is so much information and I also have to kind of do a bit of sieving and a bit of
trusting that if it’s important it will jump out at me … You know, I’m really aware that we as
human beings we do get drawn in really quickly; so I try and remain as conscious as
possible so that I don’t get caught up in it’ (Participant A).

Another showed an even stronger strategy of managing information by disengaging from any
kind of information that doesn’t support his personal citizenship goals of pursuing hobbies and
building relationships with others. Through general disengagement—what he termed
‘unlearning’—he felt he was avoiding distractions, taking more control, allowing his instinct to
flourish and was more empowered to make a difference as a citizen of his community. This
connected to his wider uneasiness with ‘authoritative stances’ which tend to close down debate
rather than leading to more questions:

‘I’m at the point now where I almost feel that information is a distraction … and I think that
is a purposeful distraction … You’ve gotta watch this! You gotta buy that! Didn’t you know
that? Don’t you watch that? … It’s almost self-simplification … and it’s left me thinking you
can do your own thing … I wouldn’t want anyone to say I was ignorant; but I made myself
ignorant. It’s enforced ignorance. And by enforcing my own ignorance I feel I have
achieved enlightenment’ (Participant E).

4.5 Information barriers

Despite some of the challenges already outlined, participants often described showing
persistence in seeking out information as it related to their personal citizenship goals, whether it
was using a variety of resources to decide who to vote for, or seeking out a human contact
when online information proved inadequate. However, different barriers were identified as
hindering IL in a citizenship context. An underlying issue for some was a feeling of political
disempowerment and scepticism of the democratic system, which affected how they interacted
with information and with democracy as citizens:

‘I’d quite like to be more active in a way … Sometimes I feel I am voicing that, feeling that
you have got a voice. And yet when I look at the things which are going on in our
government … and you just feel that you are not going to be getting anywhere’
(Participant D).

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 30

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Related to this was the sense of a system that was not easily or willingly providing all the
information needed by citizens—or even deliberately withholding information. There was an
expectation that others should do more to help inform and engage citizens:

‘What I haven’t done is be able to effectively chase down proper information about
whether we need the amount of houses we need, where we need them … I still don’t
understand whether that is correct, where that information is coming from. So I am against
[the houses] but perhaps I need to be better informed … So you just feel that you are just
battling against people who are better informed’ (Participant C).

On the other hand, it was felt that the public needed to be better at understanding information,
to overcome the ‘disconnect’ between where information has come from and how it is
presented. In this way, more systemic barriers concerning the actions of others engaged with
personal responsibility and motivation:

‘People who are interested are going to seek that information out; but if you are not
interested then you will just rely on the stuff coming through the door … And people get
distracted, quite rightly … you know we all work and we’ve got friends to see, and pubs to
go to, and the cinema to go to. So you think well actually I’ll do that instead of inform
myself’ (Participant C).

These findings show a variety of approaches to citizenship as expressed through the voices of
the participants, all of which centred on a strong sense of community. They show citizens driven
by a strong personal motivation of doing what was right for them. They also showed citizens
being thoughtful and aware of the issues surrounding the meaning of citizenship what they felt
was expected of them, and how, in return, they responded and why. In addition, the participants
recognised the complexities and potential difficulties in the information world surrounding them
and their relationship to it, and how this impacted on them as citizens. As a consequence, they
actively developed strategies for navigating this environment. This complex picture immediately
opens up spaces for exploration and discussion within the dynamic between IL and citizenship.

5. Discussion
This discussion will situate the themes that emerged in the findings into the wider body of
current LIS IL and citizenship discourse, as well as conceptions of citizenship from political
science. It will first give an overview of the information landscape of citizenship and then explore
in more detail aspects of this landscape, helping to highlight areas of future development.

5.1 The information landscape of citizenship

IL has been conceptualised and promoted as a set of discrete, generic ‘skills’ that meet
information needs, as well as a critical approach to the information world that emphasises
personal agency to self-actualise through challenge and disruption. By extension, citizenship
within LIS discourse has been viewed both as ‘skills-based,’ in which citizens inform themselves
about their duties and obligations, and develop human capital to contribute and succeed
economically, and as a critical approach that empowers citizens to engage, critique and
challenge their societies, and work actively towards social justice. However, IL has also been
conceptualised as the ‘socialised activity’ of engaging with information landscapes which are
situated in and constructed by different socio-cultural contexts and are socially embodied and

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 31

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
enacted (Lloyd, 2005; 2006; 2012; Johnston & Webber, 2005). In this way, citizenship can be
seen as an information landscape that is socially constructed and tied to context.

This study showed that citizenship was viewed as an outside socially-constructed information
landscape with its own social and cultural norms; as a result participants described sometimes
feeling a lack of connection or even conflict with what society ‘expected’ from them as citizens.
This highlighted that conceptions of citizenship are nuanced and the potential problems that can
arise with normative definitions. The participants desired to be agents; in response they
described constructing their own personal citizenship information landscapes rooted in a sense
of community, and expressed through the importance of socially-embodied information sources
associated with their professional and personal connections with others. The passive and active
engagement with information in an ‘immersive’ information world led to the development of
personal citizenship identities and goals and related information needs. As the wider information
landscape around them shifted, changed and developed, so too did their personal citizenship
information landscape, as they sought to find their social location and relationship with a
developing sense of ‘citizenship’. Through finding their ‘place’ they described finding meaning
and a sense of validation in the contribution they were making.

All socially and culturally constructed information landscapes carry with them inherent and
accepted ways of knowing and doing. Likewise, these personal citizenship information
landscapes carried with them certain expected norms. Tensions and conflict could occur upon
interaction with other information landscapes, or the encountering of information barriers, that
acted as disruptive elements. Conducting research with refugees, Lloyd (2017) has articulated
the idea of ‘fractured’ information landscapes

characterised by disjunction between the familiar and unfamiliar. Where people become
disconnected from the normative and non-normative contexts and reference points …
associated with their established communities, institutions, organisations and practices,
their new experiences may be underscored by uncertainty. (p. 40)

Personal citizenship information landscapes were also seen to experience disruptive forces that
‘fractured’ the landscape and made it more difficult for participants to feel the sense of
community that was so important to their idea of citizenship. As a result, they described
personal responses to ‘repair’ or ‘restore’ that sense of community and connection. Different
dimensions of these themes will now be discussed in more detail.

5.2 The ‘personal’ and the ‘system’

Lilburn (2008; 2013) has articulated a choice in which IL can either promote informed and
engaged citizens who maintain the societal status quo, or citizens who are empowered to
challenge the very assumptions on which society is based. This study has shown the situation
for the participants to be far more nuanced. They described not actively seeking to learn the
citizenship information landscape of wider society as they perceived it; rather, they were
motivated by their own sense of personal ethics, developing personal information landscapes
rooted strongly in building community, everyday social interactions and commonality with
others. These landscapes largely rejected neoliberal and libertarian citizenship concepts of
human capital and competitiveness (Schattle, 2005; 2008) and ideas of ‘right’ behaviour, as
often found in IL and citizenship discourse (Eckerdal, 2017; Elmborg, 2010; Stevens &
Campbell, 2006; Webber & Johnson, 2013). Instead, they described developing what can be
viewed as social capital citizenship that aligns with a community-bound citizenship, with

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 32

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
‘democratic self-government’ centred on the local community (Barber, 2004; Buschman, 2018;
2019).

Frequent tension emerged between the ‘personal’ and what was conceptualised as the
expected norms of an outside ‘system.’ Fukuyama (2018) has noted this conflict between these
inner and outer worlds:

All human societies socialize their members to live by common rules … All societies have
had rebellious teenagers and misfits who didn’t want to accept those rules, but in the
struggle, society almost always wins out by forcing inner selves to conform to external
norms. (p. 35)

As participants described challenging the status quo, they may in fact have been ‘socialised’
more than they realised; still the perception of agency in shaping personal citizenship ideas and
their associated information landscape can be considered an important motivating factor. Even
decisions to ‘conform’ were seen by one participant as an active choice informed by practical
considerations. The rejection of certain aspects of what was expected of a ‘good citizen’ shows
a voluntary citizenship developed through choice (Schattle, 2015), even if some of their
personal goals aligned with social and cultural norms—like a Venn Diagram of differing
citizenship models. This is a citizenship based on personal motivation and guiding ethos rather
than driven by socialised expectation, but which may contain elements both of maintaining and
challenging the status quo. It is exactly this individuality that allowed the participants to gain a
sense of empowerment through agency—and empowerment is a central objective of IL.
Lilburn’s (2008; 2013) IL dichotomy, therefore, is by no means clear cut.

Using agency in this way strongly follows the critical literacy approach to citizenship, as
advocated by Lilburn and others, in that participants felt empowered to engage with, critique,
reject or modify societal expectations, and follow a path most meaningful to them. However,
there were also differences. Sentiments expressed like ‘I question it but don’t go further’ or ‘I
know enough to be turned off’, along with the effect of information ‘bubbles’, go against the
promoted notion of ‘critically’ informed citizens. Similarly, the approach taken toward political
engagement was nuanced. IL discourse has focused on developing the ‘political literacy’ of
political knowledge and engagement (Buschman, 2019; Smith, 2013); but as Smith and
McMenemy (2017) have shown, political literacy and political engagement are wide-ranging and
involve many forms that often go unrecognised by normative paradigms. In this sense the
participants may not have described strong political engagement as it is traditionally
understood, but found other avenues of expression which they themselves may not have
considered to be inherently ‘political’. In addition, although the participants’ views may not be as
disruptive to the status quo as critical IL advocates may envisage, there is still a recognised
challenge through withdrawal from norms in order to pursue a personal sense of citizenship.
Just as ‘slacktivism’ has been unfairly applied to young people who disengage from norms of
political participation to pursue emerging avenues of engagement (Loader et al, 2014a; 2014b;
2016), so too would it be unfair to use the critical IL paradigm of ‘active’ and ‘engaged’
citizenship to negatively judge those who make conscious decisions to disengage from ‘formal’
politics to varying degrees to pursue their own ways of engaging with their community as
citizens.

In highlighting the tension between the ‘personal’ and the ‘system’ regarding citizenship, this
study has raised a question that is underexplored and underdeveloped in both IL theory and
praxis: the ethics of information use. In critiquing The Association of College and Research

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 33

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, Lilburn (2008)
states:

Absent from the Standards … is any mention of political issues of how the information
literate citizen uses information in a socially responsible manner … [They] appear to place
greater emphasis on compliance with economic, legal and social issues, rather than
critical understanding of these issues. (p.3)

Critical IL invites the challenging of these issues, rather than passive acceptance of them. Kelly
(1979) theorized the ‘pluralist citizen’ whose multiple loyalties may bring them into conflict with
the state. Two participants explicitly mentioned the possibility of breaking the law if they felt it
was the right thing to do or if they perceived doing so to be inconsequential; one mentioned that
information would be used in order to inform their decision. In addition, even if actions remain
legal, they may not be considered socially or culturally ‘acceptable’. IL discourse that promotes
using information in a legal, ethical and socially responsible manner as citizens, while also
advocating challenge and resistance, is full of potential difficulties, especially when ‘active’ and
‘engaged’ citizenship crosses over into the area of activism and protest. The development of
personal citizenship information landscapes, shaped and motivated by personal ethics, as seen
in this study, highlights the need for more critical reflection on these issues by the LIS
community.

5.3 Empowerment and disempowerment

Personal citizenship information landscapes come with their own expectations of information
access, use and intended results. Feelings of empowerment and disempowerment were
described as being linked with the perceived ability to meet personal citizenship goals. Tensions
and conflict with societal norms or the views and practices of others were all seen as disruptive
forces or barriers that constrained and ‘fractured’ (Lloyd, 2017) personal citizenship information
landscapes. They took forms that included disillusionment with the democratic system, difficulty
in accessing information from outside agents and disconcerting bias and polarisation. On the
other hand, participants recognised that they could do more to ‘question’, to be more politically
engaged and to understand opposing views; these can be seen as internal barriers over which
there is some degree of personal control. All of these disruptive forces were considered to some
extent to frustrate their main citizenship goals of building community, strengthening social
relations and demonstrating ‘liberal’ values of tolerance and respect.

Participants described enacting various information behaviours in response to disempowering,

disruptive forces in their information landscapes, most noticeably by creating personal
information ‘bubbles’ guided by emotional responses to information and differing levels of
(dis)engagement. The influence of emotions, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning in the
information seeking process has been highlighted (Cooke, 2017; Lenker, 2016); and in this way,
participants were acting more like ‘consumers’ in an information world of various and often
conflicting choices, where the competitive values of economic neoliberalism shape public
democratic discourse (Buschman, 2016). As one participant succinctly put it: ‘You choose your
own bias.’ On the other hand, it was recognised by some that these barriers could be
overcome—such as seeking out opposing views and developing a spirit of compromise—in
order to once again work towards the goal of communality with others.

From an IL perspective, the participants described practising critical self-reflection and identified
ways in which, in this particular area, their personal citizenship information landscape could be

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 34

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
‘repaired’ or ‘reformed’ to take into account new information. Some developed IL to tackle
distorting and opposing views, rather than eliminate them, and to engage in legitimate
adversarial debate (Buschman, 2019; Eckerdal, 2017). On the other hand, others described
taking more radical action in order to restore their information landscape and feelings of
empowerment, strongly managing or disengaging from information deemed a distracting barrier
to the pursuit of their citizenship goals. Empowerment through information disengagement
should be seen as another challenge to the IL paradigm of ‘active’ and ‘engaged’ citizens, and
supports Giroux’s (1988) idea of empowerment through actively pursued ‘illiteracy.’

In rethinking the concepts of information ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty,’ Gibson and Martin (2019)
advocate for a theory of ‘information marginalisation’ which moves away from a deficit model of
the individual to one that recognises structural and systemic barriers to IL. Similarly, participants
described being cognizant of the information barriers they faced, many of which they felt to be
systemic—within a theory of information ‘marginalisation’ they should not therefore be
considered as being ‘lacking’ as citizens. Some of the information behaviours discussed above
are those that IL theory and praxis seeks to avoid; but it must be appreciated that these
behaviours were driven by a desire to feel empowered to pursue personal concepts of
citizenship. In this way, choosing to disengage should not necessarily be seen as leading to
information poverty and marginalisation. Once again, IL and citizenship discourse must remain
open to challenge over conceptions of ‘active’, ‘engaged’ and ‘informed’ citizens, a challenge
that can be driven by the concepts of personal citizenship information landscapes and personal
citizenship goals.

6. Conclusion
Using the context of citizenship in the UK in 2019, this empirical research has enabled listening
to the voices of citizens to see how IL is understood and enacted from a citizenship perspective.
By developing the concept of personal citizenship information landscapes that are socially
constructed by the individual from the information world that they encounter, closely oriented
towards personal conceptions of citizenship and citizenship goals, this study has highlighted
and centred the role of a personal sense of agency, motivation and empowerment. Citizen
identity emerges from a personal worldview and a whole set of beliefs, desires and actions; the
constructed information landscape helps to support this identity. When engaged with wider
society, this individually-defined approach often showed resistance to certain ideas of what IL
and citizenship should look like, as advocated by some sections of LIS discourse, as well as
pushing back in differing ways against social and cultural norms of what was expected of a
‘good citizen’. In addition, the process of ‘fracturing’ and ‘repairing/reforming’ these landscapes,
driven by a desire for empowerment and personal fulfilment, demonstrated behaviours that
challenged how IL research and praxis have come to understand ‘informed’, ‘active’ and
‘engaged’ citizens. This study has demonstrated that these terms are socially-constructed and
highly subjective, and therefore potentially limitless in variety. It has shown that empowerment
as citizens can come from ‘disengagement’ with information just as much as it can from active
‘engagement’, inviting a rethink of what it actually means to be an empowered agent. The
traditional deficit paradigm of information wealth and poverty, with its related concepts of
empowerment/disempowerment and social inclusion/exclusion, is found to be lacking. This
shows how important it is, therefore, for LIS research to not just promote specific values and
goals, but to continue to build on this and other studies that demonstrate IL and citizenship to be
personally defined and motivated, and to also recognise possible tensions between what is
considered socially, culturally or legally acceptable by society (or LIS practitioners) at large, and
what is acceptable to the personal ethics of the informed, active and engaged citizen.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 35

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Moving forward, work is needed to develop the issues highlighted by these findings. The sample
size used here was small, and the findings and discussion must be seen as tentative. By using
a larger and more diverse sample, it will be possible to develop a more detailed (and likely
nuanced) picture of the relationship between IL and citizenship. Further qualitative work will also
give the opportunity to properly develop personal citizenship information landscapes as a
concept and to fully problematise it, to gain a greater understanding of the factors that motivate
and shape information use in personal citizenship contexts. Connections between IL and
citizenship need to be better understood, and personal motivations and goals are key to this
understanding, as this study has shown. It will be a fruitful endeavour to see how—or indeed
if—the promotion of a particular citizenship ethic and associated values can interact
meaningfully and positively with a potentially limitless variety of citizen perspectives; and how
current research and praxis can be adapted to better appreciate this variety. This understanding
will help IL practitioners and advocates to better connect to and enable the very citizens they
seek to empower and celebrate, and to ensure that IL remains relevant to the needs of citizens
in contemporary societies.

References
ALA (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy: Final report.

Antonesa, M. (2007). Can information literacy motivate students to become global citizens?
SCONUL Focus, 42, 28-30.

Barber, B. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of
California Press.

Brinkman, S. (2014). Unstructured and semi-structured interviewing. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The

Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp.277-99). Oxford University Press.

Bryant, A. (2014). The grounded theory method. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
qualitative research (pp.116-136). Oxford University Press.

Buschman, J. (2016). Citizenship and agency under neoliberal global consumerism: A search
for informed democratic practices. Journal of Information Ethics, 25(1), 38-53.

Buschman, J. (2017). Doing neoliberal things with words in libraries: Toward emending a
discourse fashion in LIS. Journal of Documentation, 73(4), 595-617.

Buschman, J. (2018). Everyday life, everyday democracy in libraries: Toward articulating the
relationship. The Political Librarian, 4(1), 18-28.

Buschman, J. (2019). Good news, bad news, and fake news: Going beyond political literacy to
democracy and libraries. Journal of Documentation, 75(1), 213-28.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Sage.

CILIP (2018). CILIP definition of information literacy 2018.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 36

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Cooke, N. (2017). Posttruth, truthiness, and alternative facts: Information behavior and critical
information consumption for a new age. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy,
87(3), 211-221.

Correia, A. (2002). Information literacy for an active and effective citizenship [White Paper].
UNESCO, the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, and the
National Forum on Information Literacy.

Dervin, B. (1994). Information↔Democracy: An examination of underlying assumptions. Journal

of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 369-85.

Eckerdal, J. (2017). Libraries, democracy, information literacy, and citizenship. Journal of

Documentation, 73(5), 1010-33.

Elmborg, J. (2006). Critical information literacy: Implications for instructional practice. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship. 32(2), 192-199.

Elmborg, J. (2010). Literacies, narratives, and adult learning in libraries. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 127, 67-76.

Fanon, F. (2001). The wretched of the earth. Penguin Books.

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. Profile
Books.

Gacel-Avila, J. (2005). The internationalisation of higher education: A paradigm for global

citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 121-36.

Gibson, A., & Martin, J. (2019). Re-situating information poverty: Information marginalisation
and parents of individuals with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 70(5), 476-87.

Giroux, H. (1988). Literacy and the pedagogy of voice and political empowerment. Educational
Theory, 38(1), 61-75.

Goldstein, S. (Ed.) (2020). Informed societies: Why information literacy matters for citizenship,
participation and democracy. Facet Publishing.

Griffin, C. (1999). Lifelong learning and social democracy. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 18(5), 329-342.

Hackett, D. (2018). An elephant in the room? Information literacy in the narrative of UK public
libraries. Journal of Information Literacy, 12(1), 4-26.

Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2016). It takes a community to build a framework: Information literacy
within intercultural settings. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 334-343.

IFLA (2005). Beacons of the information society: The Alexandria proclamation on information
literacy and lifelong learning.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 37

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
IFLA (2012). Moscow declaration on media and information literacy.

Jacobs, H. (2008). Information literacy and reflective pedagogical praxis. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 256-62.

Jacobs, H., & Berg, S. (2011). Reconnecting information literacy policy with the core values of
librarianship. Library Trends, 60(2), 383–94.

Johnson, B., & Webber, S. (2005). As we may think: Information literacy as a discipline for the
information age. Research Strategies, 20(3), 108-21.

Jones, J., & Symon, G. (2001). Lifelong learning as serious leisure: Policy, practice and
potential. Leisure Studies, 20(4), 269-83.

Kapitzke, C. (2003). Information literacy: A positivist epistemology and a politics of outformation.

Educational Theory, 53(1), 37-53.

Kelly, G. (1979). Who Needs a Theory of Citizenship? Daedalus, 108(4), 21-36.

Kutner, L., & Armstrong, A. (2012). Rethinking information literacy in a globalized world.
Communications in information literacy, 6(1), 24-33.

Lawson, S., Sanders, K., & Smith, L. (2015). Commodification of the information profession: A
critique of higher education under neoliberalism. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication, 3(1), Article eP1182.

Lenker, M. (2016). Motivated reasoning, political information, and information literacy education.
Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(3), 511-528.

Lievrouw, L. (1994). Information resources and democracy: Understanding the paradox. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 45(6), 350-57.

Lilburn, J. (2008). Challenging the conditions that make alternative possible: librarians, the news
media and the information literate citizen. Progressive Librarian, 30, 3-17.

Lilburn, J. (2013). ‘You’ve got to know properly’: Citizenship in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me
Go and the aims of information literacy instruction. In L. Gregory, & S. Higgins (Eds.),
Information literacy and social justice (pp.63-78). Library Juice Press.

Lloyd, A. (2005). Information literacy: Different contexts, different concepts, different truths?
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 37(2), 82-88.

Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of

Documentation, 62(5), 570-83.

Lloyd, A. (2012). Information literacy as a socially enacted practice. Journal of Documentation,

68(6), 772-83.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 38

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Lloyd, A. (2017). Researching fractured (information) landscapes: Implications for library and
information science researchers undertaking research with refugees and forced migration
studies. Journal of Documentation, 73(1), 35-47.

Lloyd, A., Lipu, S., & Keenan, M. (2010). On becoming citizens: Examining social inclusion from
an information perspective. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41(1), 42-53.

Loader, B., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. (2014a). The networked young citizen: Social media,
political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 143-
50.

Loader, B., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. (Eds.) (2014b). The networked young citizen: Social
media, political participation and civic engagement. Routledge.

Loader, B., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. (2016). Performing for the young networked citizen?
Celebrity politics, social networking and the political engagement of young people. Media,
Culture & Society, 38(3), 400-19.

Luo, L., & Wildemuth, B. (2017). Semistructured interviews. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications
of social research methods to questions in information and library science (2nd ed., pp. 248-
257). Libraries Unlimited.

Murdoch, G., & Golding, P. (1989). Information poverty and political inequality: Citizenship in the
age of private communications. Journal of Communication, 39(3), 180-95.

Nicholson, K. (2014). Information literacy as a situated practice in the neoliberal university.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science.

Pickard, A., Childs, S., Lomas, E., McLeod, J., & Shenton, A. (2013). Research Methods in
Information. (2nd ed.). Facet Publishing.

Schattle, H. (2005). Communicating global citizenship: Multiple discourses beyond the

academy. Citizenship Studies, 9(2), 119-133.

Schattle, H. (2008). Education for global citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and
adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 73-94.

Schattle, H. (2018). Citizenship. In M. Juergensmeyer, S. Sassen, M. Steger, & V. Faessel

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of global studies (pp. 697-714). Oxford University Press.

Seale, M. (2013). The neoliberal library. In L. Gregory, & S. Higgins (Eds.), Information literacy
and social justice (pp.39-62). Library Juice Press.

Shapiro, J., & Hughes, S. (1996). Information literacy as a liberal art: Enlightenment proposals
for a new curriculum. Educom Review, 31(2).

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 39

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Smith, L. (2013). Towards a model of critical information literacy instruction for the development
of political agency. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 15-32.

Smith, L. (2016a). Information literacy as a tool to support political participation. Library and
Information Research, 40(123), 14-23.

Smith, L. (2016b). School libraries, political information and information literacy provision:
Findings from a Scottish study. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(2), 3-25.

Smith, L., & McMenemy, D. (2016). Enhancing agency through information: A

phenomenographic exploration of young people’s political information experiences. Proceedings
of the Association for Information Science and Technology.

Smith, L., & McMenemy, D. (2017). Young people’s conception of political information: Insights
into information experiences and implications for intervention. Journal of Documentation, 73(5),
877-902.

Stevens, C., & Campbell, P. (2006). Collaborating to connect global citizenship, information
literacy, and lifelong learning in the global studies classroom. Reference Services Review,
34(4), 536-56.

Tewell, E. (2015). A decade of critical information literacy: A review of the literature.

Communications in information literacy, 9(1), 24-43.

Thompson, K. (2007). Furthering understanding of information literacy through the social study
of information poverty. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 31(1), 87-115.

Thornton, S. (2012). Trying to learn (politics) in a data-drenched society: Can information

literacy save us? European Political Science, 11(2), 213-23.

UNESCO (2003). The Prague declaration: Towards an information literate society.

Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2013). Transforming information literacy for higher education in the
21st century: A lifelong learning approach. In M. Hepworth & G. Walton (Eds.), Developing
people’s information capabilities: fostering information literacy in educational, workplace and
community contexts (Library and Information Science Series, pp.15-30). Emerald Publishing.

Cloudesley. 2021. Journal of Information Literacy, 15(3). 40

http://dx.doi.org/10.11645/15.3.2934
Copyright for the article content resides with the authors, and copyright for the publication
layout resides with the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals,
Information Literacy Group. These Copyright holders have agreed that this article should be
available on Open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike
license.